What have we come to

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point. People I know could afford to live here in the earlier half of this decade, and a gigantic proportion of them got evicted at some point for renovations or because the landlord needed the flat for a relative, etc - and found that new leases cost orders of magnitude more than the ones they were leaving. So they either had to downgrade substantially, leave town, or in many cases move back home. The point is that when they could afford "the good life" on part time college wages during a recession, but were then told "sorry, you can't afford it anymore" on full time career salaries, and given the boot from where they had been living, that is just not something people are going to accept.

It would be different if, as you say, people in this generation could never afford to live in these parts of Dublin, but the fact that they could in their early twenties and are now priced out in their late twenties as the same gaffs they used to live in are now on Daft for anywhere between €1,000 and €1,500 more per month than they were in the earlier half of the decade, while even in the transition from part time college jobs to full time careers people aren't earning anywhere close to that much more to be able to keep pace with inflation, means that essentially "the good life" was dangled in front of them during a time when prices were low, and they're understandably furious that it's been snatched out of reach (as others have put it, 'the ladder has been pulled up') and nobody in power was willing to do anything about it. Being told to move from the town you've been living in on your own because some greedy f*ckers want to massively increase the cost of living in that area isn't going to do anything other than cause anger and resentment towards those greedy f*ckers - and, crucially, the politicians who are seen as being "on their side".

Do you accept that the stagflation issue has caused people who formerly had a very good quality of life to have to settle for less? That somebody who could afford an apartment to rent back in 2012 or 2013 on a part time salary might seriously struggle to do so today without moving miles from home, even on a full time salary?

Call it "that's life" or "tough" or whatever, but people simply won't accept it. And they will crucify any politician who is seen to take the "it's ok with us, learn to live with it" attitude as opposed to the "it's not ok and we're going to try to change it" attitude espoused by the left.

You are mixing people affording to buy vs affording to rent, two very different things.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not the one mixing it, I've been focusing on the cost of rent throughout all of my posts. Others keep pivoting to the cost of buying in order to try and frame my arguments as strawmen. The cost of rent is the biggest issue driving under-30s towards Sinn Fein and other left wing groups, buying generally isn't on that demographic's radar at least until the tail end of that decade. So far, nobody has actually refuted (or even tried to refute, without changing the subject) that a minimum rise of 150% in the cost of renting over less than ten years represents a gigantic increase in the cost of living relative to wage inflation and, no matter how one tries to spin it, results in a gigantic reduction in quality of life as higher and higher proportions of peoples' incomes are spent on rent (combined with other utility costs which have also increased dramatically over ten years). This is classic "stagflation", the "free market solves everything" parties refused point blank to do anything about it in office, ergo a large swing towards Sinn Fein. That's all I've been trying to point out, so far nobody on the opposing side is addressing the spiralling cost of living over a short period of time as a problem which requires government action as opposed to a "well that's life, live with it" attitude. People will not live with it without revolting in some way, so when OP asks "what have we come to" with regard to Sinn Fein's rise - this is literally the answer to that. People want more bang for their buck and they certainly don't want to accept an overall reduction in living standards wherein a full time career job provides a lower standard of living to a part time college job because the cost of living and renting has reached such staggering levels of inflation during that period.

The government simply cannot ignore the cost of living issue as "well that's just the free market, tough" without anticipating an electorate which will, in droves, turn to "well f*ck the free market then" left wing politics. It just doesn't compute. How this isn't blindingly obvious to everyone trying to analyse this situation is beyond me.

brilliant post and I absolutely agree, it is so simple to understand, it beggars belief, that it has to be spelled out, like something complex you would try to explain to a child! it is so simple to understand, it beggars belief that some dont get it and that FG those morons, didnt see it coming. For those of you, that dont get it, how would you feel if your mortgage had shot up to a multiple of its original and kept on increasing, eating massively into your living standards, you'd be ok with that would you? I believe only 20 percent of people here are renters (hence the establishment are delighted with the deliberate rip off prices), but thats a few hundred thousand and will start holding serious influence, look at the shift to SF and there must be people desperate, but who also wouldnt vote SF for whatever reason! I can see the housing situation boiling over entirely, supply is up hugely, but nowhere near enough and the affordability issued is entirely unadressed...

hatrickpatrick, fair play lad: brilliant patient posting. You’ve clearly articulated the problem and the required solutions.

Obviously you can go one step further from your rental analysis: that cohort paying such a high percentage of their take home for ever lessor rental options cannot save effectively to buy a house. So you’ve got this pissed off generation suffering a lower standard of living (or less independence) year on year who won’t be able to exit the rental trap unless they ‘get a lend off their Da’, as suggested by the head of state.

So they hear SF offering to lead a different approach to housing and they’re all for it.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

hatrickpatrick, fair play lad: brilliant patient posting. You’ve clearly articulated the problem and the required solutions.

Obviously you can go one step further from your rental analysis: that cohort paying such a high percentage of their take home for ever lessor rental options cannot save effectively to buy a house. So you’ve got this pissed off generation suffering a lower standard of living (or less independence) year on year who won’t be able to exit the rental trap unless they ‘get a lend off their Da’, as suggested by the head of state.

So they hear SF offering to lead a different approach to housing and they’re all for it.

Exactly - and indeed, this advice from the Taoiseach himself is one of the many instances that I've alluded to, in which regardless of what you think of FG's housing policy, their commentary and expressed attitude towards the problem is one of, as other posters have said, "let them eat cake". And if that's their policy as a party, and their target demographic are those on the ladder as opposed to those drowning in the wake of the ladder being retracted out of reach, then fair enough - that's democracy! They're free as a party to represent whatever demographic of voters they choose to represent. Of course they are.

What doesn't make sense though, are the reactions spanning seemingly genuine head scratching - "what happened? Why are young people voting this way? How could they reject us after we "fixed" the economy?" - to outright contempt and defensive attacking of the electorate - "the voters are too thick to understand how good we've been to them! They don't get it! Silly little voters!" which were on widespread display among the establishment parties and their cheerleaders in the commentariat in the days immediately following the election result. The reason I've been posting the arguments I've been posting is that some people seem to be genuinely in the dark as to what my generation is facing and why we're not buying in to the "quality of life is better now than it was ten years ago, and FG are to be thanked for that" mantra.

To those who don't care and feel that my generation isn't their target demographic, that's grand. I obviously don't approve and I won't be voting for ye, but it's a democracy and you have every right to chase whatever cohort of voters you feel are your most reliable ticket back into the Dáil. But do not attack my generation with condescending contempt or sit around wondering out loud "how did we come to this?" when the answers are staring you right in the face, not just from posts like mine on this thread but from the lived experience of millennials which is being widely shared in the form of frustrated "off my chest" style postings on social media, in newspaper comment sections, in articles, in tweets, at local political activist meetings, and on the doorsteps when politicians come around asking for votes. I don't understand the air of bewilderment among those who are bewildered.

If you preside over a period of stagflation which primarily hits those of one particular demographic, and then turn around and express contempt for that demographic's suffering when challenged on your performance, that demographic is not going to vote for you. It's such an almost moronically simple concept that I sort of feel like if it doesn't make sense now, it never will - but it makes me extremely sad that so many people could be so oblivious to the lived experience of their fellow country men and women, that an angry revolt at the ballot box comes as some kind of seismic shock as opposed to a depressingly predictable sequence of events.

Bowie wrote: »

The majority of new builds are build to rent. These are entities feeding on the crisis and taxed at low rates because ...well that's a matter of opinion.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes.



I've posted other links over the months.

This is where you say..

"arra g'wan...something something".

Why do you keep posting lies? The statement in bold is a lie.

The link you provide does nothing to back it up, in fact it shows the lie for what it is. Build-to-rent is limited to the apartment sector. However, as your link says:

"But the stockbrokers said that apartments continue to represent a very low share of output in the country's residential sector and the sector is estimated to represent 17% of home completions last year. "

Even if build-to-rent accounted for all apartments built in the country last year, they would still only account for a minority of 17% of all new builds.


Edit: The second link you provided also showed that you were posting a lie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/investors-pile-into-property-as-turnover-in-build-to-rent-sector-reaches-2-54bn-1.4177334

"In the past 12 months forward commitments accounted for about €1.3 billion, or 51 per cent, of activity, up from €531 million the previous year. Those sales comprised 2,850 homes, while the total number of units transacted last year is estimated to be in excess of 6,500."

That means the number of homes bought by build-to-rent in 2019 was 3,850 (6,500 minus the 2,850 forward commitments). That is a minority of the over 21,000 built in that year.

hattrickpatrick, your post hits the nail on the head again, most of my mates, all workers, some mid thirties and not unemployed a day in their lives, previously voted Fg. 2011 election no brainer, the 2016 election, rock and hard place, but give them benefit of doubt, no other viable options. But like you say, not only did they no cut income taxes like they said they would (and I understand why they couldnt / didnt, but that predicament is of their own making) but aside from whatever mickey mouse tax cuts they may have given, the cost of housing annihilates any other expenditure most of us have. Then thing is, you have the posters you describe, "I have a house, I'm alright jack" , yeah, how many of you would have qualified for your mortgage, under the current lending rules? Probably a good percentage, and a good percentage that wouldnt! Or got their houses decades ago for a pittance. So you have the younger non owner ex fg voters, who thought they represented them, now going to SF or possibly not voting at all, because they have become dissilusioned. The pensioners go mad when they cant extort the government every budget for a fiver and they think the young should start selling organs to afford property and put up or shut up? The level of delusion and imcompetence is beyond any form of belief, decades of living in this country and you think you can no longer be shocked... Wrong!!!!

Bowie wrote: »

It's not a lie. My links are weak I'll grant you that. It may have been an article you posted that I originally cited from, if I recall correctly.
You are basically parroting Brendan but with less manners.

You often say 'keep posting lies'. It's not true and when you are asked for examples you run away.

Your links contradict you.

You said that the majority of new builds are build to rent. That is simply not true, a lie in other words.

Bowie wrote: »

I am not a liar Blanch.

I didn't say that you were a liar.

I said that the statement you posted was not true, in other words, a lie.

It may well be that you genuinely didn't understand the statistics and the meaning of what you posted, or you may have deliberately posted an untruth, or it may have been irrational exuberance, or there may be some other reason or rationale. I don't know, that is for you to consider.